The end of multi platform consols in 15 years
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I think it is something that needs to happen. No one is feircely loyal to their brand of DVD player, and for that matter, barring the current HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray thing, you don't need multiple DVD players to play every movie that gets released. As much as I like the unique things that Sony, MS, and Nintendo bring to the market, I think that they should all become software publishers and leave hardware manufacturing to companies like Samsung, or Toshiba, that can manufacture a machine for profit, and not need to make any money off of software sales.
I don't think it would be too hard to pull off. You would need a group of developers and software publishers to get together and agree on set standards for what a game console would need to have, and then turn it loose, so that any electronics company could make a console, similar to DVD players today.
Competition is good. It keeps companies on their toes, trying to stay ahead of the other guy. With no competition, there's no drive to improve. Also, who will design this standard platform? Will it use standard or motion control? Will it emphasize graphics power or affordability? Who will control the game licensing (necessary to avoid abominations like Custer's Revenge)?
A standard platform is a nice ideaon paper, but a truly terrible idea in real life.
I think it is something that needs to happen. No one is feircely loyal to their brand of DVD player, and for that matter, barring the current HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray thing, you don't need multiple DVD players to play every movie that gets released. As much as I like the unique things that Sony, MS, and Nintendo bring to the market, I think that they should all become software publishers and leave hardware manufacturing to companies like Samsung, or Toshiba, that can manufacture a machine for profit, and not need to make any money off of software sales.
I don't think it would be too hard to pull off. You would need a group of developers and software publishers to get together and agree on set standards for what a game console would need to have, and then turn it loose, so that any electronics company could make a console, similar to DVD players today.
rragnaar
Quoted for truth.
Competition should be on software, not hardware.
Competition is good. It keeps companies on their toes, trying to stay ahead of the other guy. With no competition, there's no drive to improve. Also, who will design this standard platform? Will it use standard or motion control? Will it emphasize graphics power or affordability? Who will control the game licensing (necessary to avoid abominations like Custer's Revenge)?
A standard platform is a nice ideaon paper, but a truly terrible idea in real life.
Shifty_Pete
I'm not proposing that only one company emerges victorious to go on and make a console, I think we need a system where any electronics company out there can make a game console, but that it has to meet unified standards so that any game made can play on it, similar to how DVDs work. That would be real competition. If you had Samsung, Toshiba, LG, Panasonic, and whoever else out there manufacturing game consoles they would compete and bring the costs down, and since they would profit from the hardware sales, they would have no need to make money off of software.
Nintendo, Sony, and MS could keep publishing software and making money on it, without the hassle of trying to be hardware manufacturers. Game developers would be able to reach the widest possible audience, and would be able to take more risks on innovative games. I realize there is a certain magic to holding a Nintendo controller, or a Dual Shock, and Halo might feel different on a non Microsoft console, but movie fans have no loyalty to the box that plays their films. It sickens me that I am so loyal to Sony because they make a peice of plastic that I like...
[QUOTE="Shifty_Pete"]Competition is good. It keeps companies on their toes, trying to stay ahead of the other guy. With no competition, there's no drive to improve. Also, who will design this standard platform? Will it use standard or motion control? Will it emphasize graphics power or affordability? Who will control the game licensing (necessary to avoid abominations like Custer's Revenge)?
A standard platform is a nice ideaon paper, but a truly terrible idea in real life.
rragnaar
I'm not proposing that only one company emerges victorious to go on and make a console, I think we need a system where any electronics company out there can make a game console, but that it has to meet unified standards so that any game made can play on it, similar to how DVDs work. That would be real competition. If you had Samsung, Toshiba, LG, Panasonic, and whoever else out there manufacturing game consoles they would compete and bring the costs down, and since they would profit from the hardware sales, they would have no need to make money off of software.
Nintendo, Sony, and MS could keep publishing software and making money on it, without the hassle of trying to be hardware manufacturers. Game developers would be able to reach the widest possible audience, and would be able to take more risks on innovative games. I realize there is a certain magic to holding a Nintendo controller, or a Dual Shock, and Halo might feel different on a non Microsoft console, but movie fans have no loyalty to the box that plays their films. It sickens me that I am so loyal to Sony because they make a piece of plastic that I like...I agree this would be beneficial to get Video Games truly mass market with a humongous saturation rate, but what of innovation? After all it was hardware competition that got us this far(Enhanced graphics, Analog sticks, the Wiimote, ect.).
The question is then, if a unified standard did come out, would it kill gaming(eventually)? Movies are different in the fact that they are content driven alone, there is no interactivity. But with games, players will grow tired of the same thing over a period of time. The DVD's have been around over 15 years. Could a unified game standard last that long?
]I agree this would be beneficial to get Video Games truly mass market with a humongous saturation rate, but what of innovation? After all it was hardware competition that got us this far(Enhanced graphics, Analog sticks, the Wiimote, ect.).The question is then, if a unified standard did come out, would it kill gaming(eventually)? Movies are different in the fact that they are content driven alone, there is no interactivity. But with games, players will grow tired of the same thing over a period of time. The DVD's have been around over 15 years. Could a unified game standard last that long?
BuddaX
That is a fair point for sure...Â
Personally, I think games need to innovate in ways other than how they are controlled, and I would imagine that you would still have new hardware iterations at the same intervals we have now. You'd still have graphical improvements. I would imagine, if such a console existed, you would have a few different controllers that shipped with it. One Wii-ish controller, and one that has the same functionality as the Dual Shock and 360 controllers, as they are mostly interchangeable.
[QUOTE="BuddaX"]
]I agree this would be beneficial to get Video Games truly mass market with a humongous saturation rate, but what of innovation? After all it was hardware competition that got us this far(Enhanced graphics, Analog sticks, the Wiimote, ect.).The question is then, if a unified standard did come out, would it kill gaming(eventually)? Movies are different in the fact that they are content driven alone, there is no interactivity. But with games, players will grow tired of the same thing over a period of time. The DVD's have been around over 15 years. Could a unified game standard last that long?
rragnaar
That is a fair point for sure...
Personally, I think games need to innovate in ways other than how they are controlled, and I would imagine that you would still have new hardware iterations at the same intervals we have now. You'd still have graphical improvements. I would imagine, if such a console existed, you would have a few different controllers that shipped with it. One Wii-ish controller, and one that has the same functionality as the Dual Shock and 360 controllers, as they are mostly interchangeable.Hardware upgrades would defeat the intention of creating a standard. The goal of the standard is to reach as many people as possible. With mulitple hardware upgrades, you change the idea of who can play what on which system. Companies like Nintendo, MS, and Sony may as well stick to the current business model if that were the case.
Hardware upgrades would defeat the intention of creating a standard. The goal of the standard is to reach as many people as possible. With mulitple hardware upgrades, you change the idea of who can play what on which system. Companies like Nintendo, MS, and Sony may as well stick to the current business model if that were the case.BuddaX
I suppose it will be several years before we get hardware that is completely future perfect, but at some point games should reach a point where more powerful hardware isn't needed. I'm not suggesting that this unified platform just get random upgrades at random times, but that when they establish the platform, they decide how long it should be viable, and build the hardware accordingly. Your argument implies that since DVD wasn't completely future proof, we never should have left VHS.
I think it is something that needs to happen. No one is feircely loyal to their brand of DVD player, and for that matter, barring the current HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray thing, you don't need multiple DVD players to play every movie that gets released. As much as I like the unique things that Sony, MS, and Nintendo bring to the market, I think that they should all become software publishers and leave hardware manufacturing to companies like Samsung, or Toshiba, that can manufacture a machine for profit, and not need to make any money off of software sales.
I don't think it would be too hard to pull off. You would need a group of developers and software publishers to get together and agree on set standards for what a game console would need to have, and then turn it loose, so that any electronics company could make a console, similar to DVD players today.
rragnaar
I agree. If this console war BS were to stop, and a unified industry released a "game player," it would be a good thing -- for the consumer at least.
Problem is, whoever wins the market usually wins big, and getting them to go along with it would be difficult. Imagine trying to get Sony to go along with something like this hot on the heels of the PS2 -- they'd have called the idea daft. Now though? They'd probably be a lot more receptive to it, and I KNOW their stockholders would be. Or imagine trying to get Nintendo right now to talk about something like this -- they're making $50 profit per system and they're selling a million a month. They'd crap all over the idea now, but they might have been receptive in the Cube era.
Just like most other things, I think it would be hardest to get the company who was having the least difficult time finding success on board. Then there's also the philosphical differences, like the Wii remote vs a standard controller, hi-def or low-def, what graphics card to use, how much horsepower and so on. Although these companies are usually at least civil towards each other, I have a feeling you'd get one hell of a catfight if you stuck the bigwigs from all three in the same boardroom (wouldn't it have been classic to see something like this with Yamauchi still around? God, I'd pay money to see that).
It's a great idea, and I think it would ultimately be good for the industry, but that said, I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening. Too much money and power up for grabs and too many inflated egos from the suits up there in the ivory towers calling the shots. And when you look at the counterpoint, it's easy to see why they wouldn't go along. I mean, if I knew that I had a 1 in 3 chance of completely owning the videogame market, I don't know that I would either. I mean, those are pretty damn good odds, and even when the consolation prize for third place is 20 million systems sold and billions of dollars in software revenue, it's still not a bad proposition.
I agree. If this console war BS were to stop, and a unified industry released a "game player," it would be a good thing -- for the consumer at least.
Problem is, whoever wins the market usually wins big, and getting them to go along with it would be difficult. Imagine trying to get Sony to go along with something like this hot on the heels of the PS2 -- they'd have called the idea daft. Now though? They'd probably be a lot more receptive to it, and I KNOW their stockholders would be. Or imagine trying to get Nintendo right now to talk about something like this -- they're making $50 profit per system and they're selling a million a month. They'd crap all over the idea now, but they might have been receptive in the Cube era.
Just like most other things, I think it would be hardest to get the company who was having the least difficult time finding success on board. Then there's also the philosphical differences, like the Wii remote vs a standard controller, hi-def or low-def, what graphics card to use, how much horsepower and so on. Although these companies are usually at least civil towards each other, I have a feeling you'd get one hell of a catfight if you stuck the bigwigs from all three in the same boardroom (wouldn't it have been classic to see something like this with Yamauchi still around? God, I'd pay money to see that).
It's a great idea, and I think it would ultimately be good for the industry, but that said, I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening. Too much money and power up for grabs and too many inflated egos from the suits up there in the ivory towers calling the shots. And when you look at the counterpoint, it's easy to see why they wouldn't go along. I mean, if I knew that I had a 1 in 3 chance of completely owning the videogame market, I don't know that I would either. I mean, those are pretty damn good odds, and even when the consolation prize for third place is 20 million systems sold and billions of dollars in software revenue, it's still not a bad proposition.
Shame-usBlackley
Well spoken as usual. I'm sure Nintendo's monetary success with the Wii would keep them from being interested. Which is a bummer, I was kinda hoping every console maker this gen would learn a lesson from how they are doing things. MS will have much better hardware next time out, and Sony will be a hell of a lot cheaper.
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if Sony and MS decide to mimic Nintendo's strategy next time around by putting out a machine that only marginally improves on the previous gen's hardware. It would make sense for sure. I like my PS3, but I'd be just as happy with a PS2.5.
I think that would be a terrible idea that would kill innovation. Major shifts were brought about because various hardware makers struck out on their own (Sony was the first believer in polygons and introduces larger storage formats whenever they introduce a system, MS built a modem into their system and demonstrated the utility of hard drives, etc.). Moves such as those might not have come about if everybody had to agree on a unified standard.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment